It is time for a Ministry of Social Justice. Creating new departments has a bad reputation in Westminster. Civil servants working on planning must have ost track of the number of times their department has mutated from the old Department of the Environment to John Prescott's DETR and MAFF, to DEFRA and DCLG. The business department has suffered a similar fate, evolving from The Board of Trade to the DTI, DBERR, BERR, Mandelson's super department BIS and now its Cable successor. Merely unscrewing a nameplate in Whitehall achieves nothing. However, there is now a serious case for the reorganisation of government around social justice.

The issue has been put on the agenda by the riots. A better reason for a new Ministry is that successive governments have failed to make transformative progress on the root causes of poverty. Tackling these root causes requires a joined up approach. Integrating services becomes more crucial the more deprived you are, as problems heap upon problems in a downward spiral. A classic example is the interrelationship between depression and unemployment. Depression might lead to job loss. But being unemployed is known to affect mental health. One reinforces the other. The answer is to tackle both simultaneously, as numerous reports and bodies have recommended - such as Breakthrough Britain, the Making Every Adult Matter coalition, the Frank Field review, the Social Exclusion Task Force, and The Family Life Chances report. But although the problems are closely connected, the support we offer is not.

Politics is about actions and about ends – not one or the other in isolation. In his thought-provoking recebt piece for ConservativeHome, Michael Merrick questioned the role for progressivism in the Conservative Party. He argued that ‘if all parties essentially agree on their vision of the ideal ends for society, then what makes the Conservative Party so different?’ and went on to argue that it is not enough to simply differ on the means for delivering a commonly held goal – that conservatism should defend different goals to the Left entirely.

To some extent we agree with Michael Merrick’s argument. We do differ on the ends we are pursuing to the Left. It is true that conservatives have a different view of the ‘good life’; that we cling to principles that the Left has abandoned; and decry values that they hold dear. However, being a progressive does not undermine one’s conservatism – rather, it enhances it.

The Progressive Conservative Project at Demos is committed to developing bold, practical policies that are both strongly progressive and deeply conservative. Yes, as Merrick suggests, part of what sets us apart from Labour is means – the ‘how’, not ‘what’. Conservatives understand the limitations of government and trust the vitality of the private and third sector. We prioritise individual freedom and choice. We distrust radical change for change’s sake – in doing so we acknowledge the role of civil society in shaping the ‘good life’ for the many.

But more than that, the distinction between how and what is arbitrary. Means often are ends. Take Michael Gove’s exciting education policies for example. Certainly, they aim for a progressive outcome: a good and free education for all; and it is an outcome Ed Balls claims to share too. But that does not mean that the policies are vapid, or cannot be uniquely conservative; nor that the means chosen – Swedish schools – are just a bland technocratic lever. In fact, the means chosen will themselves have a positive outcome: getting parents involved in shaping schools will not only drive up standards (the end), but will also create a precious sense of community, activism and power along the way too. So we do not have to fret so much if Labour happens to want to get to the same place by a different route. The argument is not just about efficiency or competence. This policy will deliver progressive ends through conservative means but will change society in a profoundly conservative way as well.